Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Pragmatism, Viewed Pragmatically

By Tobin Harshaw December 12, 2008 7:04 pmDecember 12, 2008 7:04 pm

Any number of leftists have reflexively complained about the pragmatic approach Barack Obama has taken in his transition rhetoric and cabinet appointments. The Nation’s Christopher Hayes, on the other hand, has given the issue a great deal of thought. “Fair enough,” writes. “We get it. He’s a pragmatist. But just what does that mean?”

Hayes continues:

It can’t simply be that he’s comfortable with compromise, willing to maneuver in the world as it is. That goes without saying. The man was just elected president of the United States. Head-in-the-clouds idealists do not, as a rule, come to control the American nuclear arsenal …

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, “pragmatists” of all stripes–Alan Dershowitz, Richard Posner–lined up to offer tips and strategies on how best to implement a practical and effective torture regime; but ideologues said no torture, no exceptions. Same goes for the Iraq War, which many “pragmatic” lawmakers–Hillary Clinton, Arlen Specter–voted for and which ideologues across the political spectrum, from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders, opposed. Of course, by any reckoning, the war didn’t work. That is, it failed to be a practical, nonideological improvement to the nation’s security. This, despite the fact that so many willed themselves to believe that the benefits would clearly outweigh the costs. Principle is often pragmatism’s guardian. Particularly at times of crisis, when a polity succumbs to collective madness or delusion, it is only the obstinate ideologues who refuse to go along. Expediency may be a virtue in virtuous times, but it’s a vice in vicious ones.

There’s another problem with the fetishization of the pragmatic, which is the brute fact that, at some level, ideology is inescapable. Obama may have told Steve Kroft that he’s solely interested in “what works,” but what constitutes “working” is not self-evident and, indeed, is impossible to detach from some worldview and set of principles. Alan Greenspan, of all people, made this point deftly while testifying before Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee. Waxman asked Greenspan, “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?” To which Greenspan responded, “Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to–to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not.”

I apologize for the long excerpt, but I think the whole thing’s worth a read — in its own right and also to get a grasp on the flowering of intelligent thought it has initiated on the right. For example, here’s Daniel Larison at the American Conservative, taking issue with the contemporary definition of political pragmatism:

Think of it another way: a man of political principles is concerned with using both the right means for the right ends and is willing to let experience inform his assumptions, while the ideologue is indifferent to the means used and willfully ignorant of experience that challenges his assumptions. Any opposition between pragmatism and ideology also seems to me to be misleading from the beginning because what passes for “pragmatism” in government represents adherence to a particular reigning ideology. There might conceivably be some genuine empirically-oriented, sane pragmatism that does not fit this definition, but this is not the pragmatism the political class invokes and it is not the one we are discussing. When a given politician announces his interest in “what works,” we might reasonably interpret this as a statement that he does not intend to overturn established consensus and accepts the constraints and assumptions of the reigning ideology, which broadly speaking means state capitalism at home and hegemonism abroad.

The big question for progressives, I tend to think, isn’t whether Barack Obama ends up draping the language of non-ideological “experimentation” around a succession of proposals that would shift American policy distinctly leftward and make John Dewey smile: He’s already done that. It’s whether the policy shifts he embraces will go far enough to reconcile progressives to the fact that a “non-ideological” liberalism, in our era as in the earlier liberal ascendancy, requires an ideological Left as its foil. In practice, this means that Obama will probably often end up defining himself against progressivism, rhetorically, even when he’s embracing progressive ideas. (See his campaign’s extremely effective health-care ads for an example of how this works in practice.) The President-elect’s ability to hold his coalition together, then, may depend in no small part on whether the Democratic Party’s left wing feels that it’s getting enough out of his Presidency in practice to justify playing the bad guy in the narrative Obama will be selling to the country as a whole, in which post-partisan “whatever works” pragmatism triumphs over ideologues of the left and right alike.

And Douthat’s “Grand New Party” co-author, Reihan Salaam, writing at the American Scene, appreciates Hayes’s point but isn’t sure we have enough evidence to judge the case.

Of course, Obama established his foreign policy bona fides in part by emphasizing that he does not oppose all ways — only “dumb” wars. Which is to say, Obama has no ideological objections to an aggressive foreign policy, one that would involve striking deep into Pakistan if the circumstances demanded it, or taking military action against an intransigent Iran. This could all be political posturing. If it’s not, I think it lends credence to Sunstein’s thesis.

We can all agree, however, that the answer to this question is basically unknowable. Even if Obama has a very long presidency full of consequential decisions, I’m pretty sure we’ll still be debating this question.

Unless I am mistaken, the complete reference to Douthat & Salam’s book is The Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream. May I assume that the Republican senators, who just rejected the auto industry loan and took the opportunity to hammer the UAW in the process, have not yet read the book? I would suggest sending a copy to Senator bob Corker pronto! As it stands, the GOP has already had a head start in loosing all national elections as far into the future as the political eye can see. Whatever gave them the idea that now was the time to embarrass their president only those who caucused can say. In the long run, it was a major blunder if the aforesaid authors were serious in suggesting the Grand Old Party was ready for a face-lift.
clem healy

The point of pragmatism is that all your ideals are worthless if you can’t put them into practice. I’m sure if Obama could make our country a progressive one overnight with a decree he would. But that’s not the way this country is governed; we govern ourselves by consensus, and thus Obama must use a combination of /persuasion/ and /compromise/. Persuasion means using rational argument and empirical evidence to try to sway another party to accept your analysis and policy judgment. Compromise means recognizing that we won’t all get all that we want but that most of us can agree on some important things that most of us want. Those things are the crux of democracy. Obama understands this, and will use this to the best of his abilities to improve this country.

There is another important asset of consensus-building, and that is ownership of decisionmaking. If the Obama administration were to follow the lead of certain other administrations and simply set out its policy as a done deal, however great that policy may be, it will simplly be called the Obama policy. If however he involves decisionmakers from both sides of the aisle and comes to a solid consensus on a beneficial, if imperfect, policy package on some important issue, then everyone owns the decision; everyone will be to blame if it fails, and everyone will be lauded if it succeeds.

Pure poppycock. Pragmatism means that the meaning is in the result — pragmatism is always oriented towards the goal. That is not to say the ends justify the means — the means have consequences, all of which are included in the results. The other important factor is that it requires the philosophy of science as its foundation — it relies on knowledge of cause and effect to be able to determine correct action to accomplish the intended ends. Pragmatism is therefore not a philosophy in itself, only an emphatic statement that results matter.

You do not need an ideology — ideology is primarily about the means, and very little about the ends — most people know what a good end state is, which is the goal. Most people know right from wrong, but if you insist on the rude interpretation of pragmatism as “anything goes”, then you should call it “Moral Pragmatism” — that precludes bad goals and bad means.

If you don’t know what is moral and you cannot create a plan that has a good chance of succeeding, then you should not be in politics and you should not pretend to be a leader — and you should leave the discussion of pragmatism up to those who are moral, understand cause-effect relations, are uncynical about life and government, and want to do good for society.

Why should we on the left tolerate being demonized by anyone when our principles have consistently been validated by historical events and the right’s principles have so often amounted to nothing more than an excuse for tyranny?

Ideologues across the political spectrum opposed the Iraq War? The Iraq War became a historical fact because the neo-con ideologues in the GWB 2.0 Administration pushed for war and got their way.

I really hate those individuals like Hernshaw who make facts up to suit their arguments. It speaks to a lack of intellectual integrity, which gets in my craw. Discussing anything with liars is a waste of time: the direct approach is to either walk away from them or physically beat them within an inch of their lives. The indirect approach is to destroy them with the truth – You win if you have convinced everyone but them.

Ideologues are the ones who are most likely to tamper with the facts, because they are the ones who have most to gain from a seamless story line. The second class of despicable individuals are the high school debaters who will tamper with facts to suit their arguments. The third class of despicable individuals are those who tamper with the facts to push whatever is their agenda including self-gain.

Even as we speak, we have scientific illiterate jackasses who want to second guess the National Academy of Sciences in denying the reality of global warming and who deny the reality of evolution in the face of the rapidly expanding field of developmental biology. I am also sick of the small, limited government clowns and frauds whose see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil concept of regulatory oversight brought us the financial crisis that we are in today. None of these bozos have anything to say that I want to hear.

What Obama is trying to do is refocus Americans or what is really important. Good schools, healthcare, security, conservation, energy indepedence etc..;. That is what he means by pragmatism. This country politics does not match its problems. Obama is trying to change that. He is not trying to grow or expand government. He is trying to make government work. He will encounter lots of resistance from the establishment, but as long as he has the support of the American people he or we will take back this government and make it accountable to the people again.

I understand a poltician who claims to be a pragmatist as a politician who supports whatever works, but for him, not for us. That is he is a politician that will support whatever will help him get elected and stay elected.

And I consider all Democrats now in office to be such pragmatists because they have to be. There is no ideology that now exists that supports what they support. And everything they support and implement has bad consequences that dwarf any good it does, but what they support helps get them elected because the benefits of their programs are visible and popular with the people they benefit and the costs are hidden and widely dispersed.

So the Democrats can win the support of a majority of people because they support many programs that provide some visible benefits to many special interests even though the accumulation of the costs of all those programs hurt many of their constituents more than they are benefited by them.

And the votes on the war in Iraq revealed the true nature of the Democrats that were then in the Senate. Everyone of them that had his eyes on the White House voted for the war when it appeared popular but voted to abandon the effort when it became unpopular. So clearly they didn’t vote for it because they thought it was necessary to enhance our own security, or to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam and give them a chance at a decent country and a better life. They voted for it because they thought it would help them move up.

And we don’t actually know whether Obama was against the war on principle, or what that principle was, or because he thought it would help his career to be against it. He was not in the Senate at the time but trying to get there from a blue state.

And the recent vote on the bail out of Detroit shows that they all are such pragmatists par excellence.

The failure of the bail out is blamed on Republican ideologues who don’t like the idea of government picking winners and losers and don’t buy into the notion that some institutions are “too big to fail”, or more correctly too big to be allowed to fail, but did you notice the vote on closing off the debate that never actually started.

It was 52 to 35, with 10 Republicans joining 40 Democrats and the two Independents in favor of the bail out. 13 Senators did not even bother showing up, and 9 of those Senators were Democrats! If the Democrats really wanted to pass the measure, don’t you think that they could get their 9 guys to show up to vote for cloture? Of course, one of the 9 was Obama. He had resigned. But why did he resign? He didn’t have to until he became President. So why? To avoid having to cast some critical votes? And if were in fact difficult to round up 8 more votes for cloture, why didn’t Reid force the Republicans to actually filibuster and defend their position? If he had, we all would have had an opportunity to weigh in and put pressure on the Republicans to give it up, or maybe to root them on.

Clearly, the bail out failed because the Democrats, always pragmatic, didn’t want it to pass without the cover provided by substantial Republican support. However good they thought it would be for Detroit and the nation, they didn’t think passing it without that cover would be good for them.

And Obama of course resigned because he didn’t want to take a position on a controversial issue that might come back to bite him. And I expect we are going to see a lot of that from him. He is going to reluctant to do much of anything without substantial Republican support,even though he won’t need much, since the Democrats will have 58 seats in the next Senate to get his agenda passed.

Of course, he ran promising to change the way Washington does business and told us that Washington had become the place where good ideas go to die. But he apparently thought the bail out was a good idea, but let it die wihout a fight. And if he really wanted to change Washington, he would tell us that the Senate needs to change its rules so the majority in that body like in every other democratically elected legislature in the world can work its will, and so that he and the Democrats can implement their agenda without the need of any Republican support whatsoever. But he hasn’t argued for that which again suggests that he doesn’t think that implemting the agenda he is promoting would not be so good for the country for him.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq, and consider myself a pragmatist. My reason was the high probability of long-term damage to America. I didn’t believe or imagine the administration would make such a mess of it.

As excerpted above, an ideologue acts from basic tenets. In the extreme, such tenets are pursued mindlessly: “Tax cuts good. Government bad. Regulation bad.” On the other hand, a different tenet is “War bad. Killing people bad.” Unfortunately, there are times when war and killing are unavoidable. But war in Iraq was not unavoidable, and an increase in hatred and terrorism were predictable and predicted.

In arguing against the invasion, I cited the obvious (to me) long standing desire of some (now I know they were the dreaded neo-conservatives), together with the knowledge that things done in haste are often regretted in pain for long years, or even centuries.

Consider two cases. Tolstoy set the beginning of his short novel, Hadji Murad, in the mid 1840s. The background was the conflict between Russians and Chechens. If that conflict is now over, it’s because the war in Iraq gave Putin cover for the brutal destruction of Chechen resistance. The mid 1840s also saw the start of the Irish potato blight tragedy, with the worst year being 1847. The Irish “troubles” and thirty years of murder in Northern Ireland are direct outgrowths of the anger caused by the British response to the famine.

Perhaps the pragmatic opposition to the invasion was ideological after all—avoiding unnecessary slaughter and long-term blow-back on America.

I wonder if Barrack Obama’s apparent pragmatism is not just a way of avoiding a non-productive clash of ideologies. If one wants to bring problem solving and the legislative progress to a grinding halt, the best way to do it would be to stand up and declare an ideology. Those who disagree with the declared ideology would then be reluctant to go along with any measures he put forward, those who agree with it would require that every proposal be true to it, a change in the articulation of the ideology would be a distraction, as would any change in the substance of it. One who claims only to be pragmatic, and not ideolgically driven, need only deal with the facts of the problem and the possible fixes – let everybody else get mired in the grand principles of it all.
And isn’t it true that the recent events have exposed all ideologies which have been popular in the US over the past twenty years or so to be failures. No-one got it right and massive changes are required. I think Obama believes that as the situation unfolds and the crises are dealt with a new ideology will emerge.
Look at the failed policies that are on the table at the moment. Free market theory and the role of regulation , free trade, energy, labour relations, healthcare, the nationalization of industries, foreign relations and the military. It is staggering, and the situation must be dealt with in an atmosphere of collapsing institutions, risng unemployment, falling tax revenues. It is laughable that important people would confer on the issue of how this mess will be prevented from ever happening again – you have just been shot and you are dying, the issue is critical care and living another day, not gun control.

My gut tells me that, despite his obvious intelligence and progressive rhetoric, Mr. Obama has chosen to compromise (be pragmatic) as the only way to advance his personal agenda, and that he will continue to do so as he re-enters the jungle in Washington (a new jungle for him). Although it has been said that Mr. Obama has the most liberal/progressive voting record in the Senate, I am not optimistic that he will continue that as President. Time will tell.

While I agree with most of this, I don’t think I agree that the war with Iraq was a pragmatic decision in any way. That was an ideological war pushed by the neo-cons, the pragmatic solution was to let the inspectors do their thing.

It is fun to parse semantics with sabres of erudition, but does it serve a pragmatic purpose?

It seems we each have a different worldview in which our concept of political pragmatism proves to be elusively subjective. Pragmatism, by its nature, is a shape-shifter, so that is not surprising. Perhaps that is why it has become such a popular term in politics, since almost any political initiative that might be blocked by ideological conflict can, under the artful mantle of pragmatism, gain respectable consensus.

Great decisions and great judgement, in a political or any other context, depend first of all on objective knowledge. This is a serious constraint when it concerns decisions affecting the future – expectations are not a substitute for knowledge, so we have to fall back on assumptions. The assumptions of ideologues are formed by the moral certitude of faith, where those of pragmatists are born of the intellectual certitude of probability.

Pragmatists are ideologues of a different stripe. But, when faced with failure, a pragmatist will adapt and try something different. An ideologue would metaphorically sacrifice a goat and keep doing the same thing.

I think the discussion around whether an ideological framework is behind someone’s worldview is a distraction.
What’s more important is the fact that someone is willing to change the course in the face of evidence. The change of course may take the person on an ideological see-saw. This is something we haven’t seen in the past 8 years. Emphasizing trust and loyalty over empiricism and meritocracy is a path to disaster and Groupthink. The fact that Obama specifically mentioned that he will not allow Whitehouse to get into Groupthink is refreshing. I believe this is the kind of pragmatism we need. Of course, actions speak louder than words. Meanwhile, the academics can debate the semantics.

How about some of these people actually look into philosophical origins of pragmatism. It is, indeed, a leftist orientation–largely a response to Marxist leftism. And I’d be hard pressed to call a person a pragmatist if his actions didn’t make John Dewey smile (what with him being one of the founders of pragmatism and all).

The pragmatist’s solution to the crisis in the auto industry might be the following.

Forget free trade. The new rule for the auto industry, and perhaps other industries, would be that any manufacturer, foreign or domestic based, may import products and parts for sale in the US duty free as long as their production in the US is proportionatre to their sales in the US. Fix a high duty on non-complying imports.

Provide universal health care. Both McCain and Obama had some good ideas on this. The delivery of health care services would remain as it is, private insurers would provide the coverage at levels prescribed by law, and the funding would be administered through the tax system. The insurers would be regulated, like banks (or like banks should be), with presribed levels of coverage and standards of service and financial reserves, and would be backed by some sort of FDIC type coverage. All employers would be relieved of their health care obligations, with the goverment to take over all assets set aside in plans to finance future health care . The cost of health care services and drugs in future would be controlled by the tensions between the insurers, the public, the governement and the providers.

Let the US auto makers fend for themselves, go into bankruptcy if that is what naturally occurs, and provide no government assistance. With the improved conditions the new rules on imports and health care should bring, the big three may be viable and refinanceable in the private sector. If f they are not, there should be foreign manufacturers to take over their plants to meet the new US content requirements.

Let the UAW and other unions and their employees fend for themselves. They are private sector players in this game just like the auto manufacturers, and no one should be cushioned from the consequences of their decisions and actions.

Forget completely and immediatley the idea of a car czar. Goverments set policy and regulate, they don’t run companies. Russia tried that once, remember how well that worked.

I think the newly humbled Greenspan hits the nail on the head. The real question is whether the core principles accurately reflect reality. Right wing ideology failed largely because it chose to completely ignore reality. And there are clearly more than a few blind spots in left wing ideology as well. National security being one of them. Lefties should be very thankful that Obama is smart enough not to blindly steer left on every issue.

Obama’s “pragmatism” is just further evidence that the United States is truly a one-party state. Political power has always been controlled by conservative capitalists – occasional symbolic gestures have been made to placate workers and special interests, but the business of government and power has always been to further the interests of the wealthy few.

The only real difference between the two major divisions within this one party state – Democrats and Republicans – is the degree to which they are open about their agenda. Democrats have been more effective at hiding behind a facade of apparent belief in the common good. Republicans have generally been more appallingly honest about their self-interest and indifference to others.

Obama is merely more of the same, albeit in trendy, contemporary packaging.

The NYTimes just posted an article where Gates has noted ‘world leaders’ anticipate engaging PE Obama, many with nefarious objectives.

I had serious reservations about Obama, especially given his rise through Chicago politics; I did not vote for him (I debated that one right up to election day), but I’ve got to say – I’m pretty optimistic about this President, and especially his cabinet, based on what I’ve seen so far. If it pans out they were extraneous to the shenanigans in Illinois, I’ll be doubly pleased.

Just a thought – but I expect there will be some ‘world event’ intended to test Obamas meddle. I pity the fool(s), as I fully expect an example will be made by that event, as Obama needs to set the ‘mood’, and display just how capable this administration will be. This should be interesting.

“I apologize for the long excerpt, but I think the whole thing’s worth a read — in its own right and also to get a grasp on the flowering of intelligent thought it has initiated on the right.”

Why “on the right?” I am firmly a member of the left, but that does not prevent my thinking that “the flowering of Intelligent thought” can be seen, and certainly should be welcomed and praised, throughout the spectrum. The history of writing “comments” is still very small, but I would hazard a guess that the quality of thought (and writing) has improved markedly since Obama appeared as a viable national leader. A serious man inspires serious thinking, and, as we all know, if you can’t think well, you can’t write well. All in all, this kind of improvement may well be one of the most valuable-in-the-long-term effects of this remarkable man’s rendezvous with destiny.

Since political pragmatism claims as adherents such icons as Machiavelli, Alexander and Roosevelt (Franklin D.) – a Schemer, a Doer and a Dabbler – it is hardly surprising that there is so much divergence in opinion as to what the concept really means.

Although seldom free of political and ideological constraints, the essence of pragmatism is to trump or circumvent such obstacles to achieve a goal.

I would define Political Pragmatism as the shortest path between an idea and its realization that bisects all ideologies that lie between.

Quite often names of politicians who were for the Iraq war appear like for example senator Clinton. Why? Because Mr. Obama is the only one that was against.
The representatives of the people were strongly misinformed by the administration as was most of the American people together with much of the world. A “Bull’s Eye” to the president elect, but nobody should hold out the “for”s all the time.
However, one wize guy said that war never determine who is right – only who is left.

So much to say, so little time.
First of all, Obama’s posturing about “finishing the war in Afghanistan” and striking deep into Pakistan was political. But by making that pragmatic choice during the campaign, he now has placed himself in a box. He must now continue to do the bidding of the military-industrial complex that profits from continual warfare, thus betraying the anti-war progressive base that helped put him in office. Iraq was a greedy, reckless and deceptively sold military campaign. A money and power grab, more than anything. Afghanistan/Pakistan is truly a DUMB WAR. Un-winnable. Extraordinarily dangerous and expensive, especially coming at a time of financial crisis and with a military already demoralized and exhausted. If it spreads to Pakistan, and how could it not, we have Vietnam all over again, except this time, Cambodia has the atom bomb.
He is leading us into disaster by NOT sticking to his ideals.

Don’t even get me started on the “pragmatism” of caving in to lobbyists and giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies who broke the law, thus preventing the American people from EVER finding out the extent to which their rights were violated. So “pragmatism” means breaking the law is sometimes okay, that accountability after years of lawlessness is not what America stands for?

Oh, yeah. And then there’s the “pragmatic” elevation of Rubin, Summers and Geithner to lead us out of a financial crisis that their deregulatory policies helped create.
I’m a lifelong Democrat, and it pains me to say this. I don’t know who Barack Obama is anymore. After talking so much about change and hope, he just seems like another political animal to me. He’s certainly not a progressive.

What's Next

The Thread is an in-depth look at how the major news events and controversies of the day are being viewed and debated across the online spectrum. Compiled by Peter Catapano, an editor in The Times’s Opinion section, the Thread is published every Saturday in response to breaking news.